'Warm blob' in Pacific Ocean linked to weird weather across the US

“The blob” in April 2014, as shown in the July 2014 newsletter where it got its evocative name. The scale is in degrees Celsius. Credit: NOAA

The one common element in recent weather has been oddness. The West Coast has been warm and parched; the East Coast has been cold and snowed under. Fish are swimming into new waters, and hungry seals are washing up on California beaches.

A long-lived patch of warm water off the West Coast, about 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal, is part of what's wreaking much of this mayhem, according to two University of Washington papers to appear in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

"In the fall of 2013 and early 2014 we started to notice a big, almost circular mass of water that just didn't cool off as much as it usually did, so by spring of 2014 it was warmer than we had ever seen it for that time of year," said Nick Bond, a climate scientist at the UW-based Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, a joint research center of the UW and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Bond coined the term "the blob" last June in his monthly newsletter as Washington's state climatologist. He said the huge patch of water - 1,000 miles in each direction and 300 feet deep - had contributed to Washington's mild 2014 winter and might signal a warmer summer.

Ten months later, the blob is still off our shores, now squished up against the coast and extending about 1,000 miles offshore from Mexico up through Alaska, with water about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. Bond says all the models point to it continuing through the end of this year.

The new study explores the blob's origins. It finds that it relates to a persistent high-pressure ridge that caused a calmer ocean during the past two winters, so less heat was lost to cold air above. The warmer temperatures we see now aren't due to more heating, but less winter cooling.

Co-authors on the paper are Meghan Cronin at NOAA in Seattle and a UW affiliate professor of oceanography, Nate Mantua at NOAA in Santa Cruz and Howard Freeland at Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The warm blob earlier this week, now squished up against the West Coast. The scale bar is in degrees Celsius (each increment is 1.8 F). Credit: NOAA National Climate Data Center

The authors look at how the blob is affecting West Coast marine life. They find fish sightings in unusual places, supporting recent reports that West Coast marine ecosystems are suffering and the food web is being disrupted by warm, less nutrient-rich Pacific Ocean water.

The blob's influence also extends inland. As air passes over warmer water and reaches the coast it brings more heat and less snow, which the paper shows helped cause current drought conditions in California, Oregon and Washington.

The blob is just one element of a broader pattern in the Pacific Ocean whose influence reaches much further - possibly to include two bone-chilling winters in the Eastern U.S.

A study in the same journal by Dennis Hartmann, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences, looks at the Pacific Ocean's relationship to the cold 2013-14 winter in the central and eastern United States.

Despite all the talk about the "polar vortex," Hartmann argues we need to look south to understand why so much cold air went shooting down into Chicago and Boston.

His study shows a decadal-scale pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean linked with changes in the North Pacific, called the North Pacific mode, that sent atmospheric waves snaking along the globe to bring warm and dry air to the West Coast and very cold, wet air to the central and eastern states.

"Lately this mode seems to have emerged as second to the El Niño Southern Oscillation in terms of driving the long-term variability, especially over North America," Hartmann said.

In a blog post last month, Hartmann focused on the more recent winter of 2014-15 and argues that, once again, the root cause was surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific.

That pattern, which also causes the blob, seems to have become stronger since about 1980 and lately has elbowed out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to become second only to El Niño in its influence on global weather patterns.

"It's an interesting question if that's just natural variability happening or if there's something changing about how the Pacific Ocean decadal variability behaves," Hartmann said. "I don't think we know the answer. Maybe it will go away quickly and we won't talk about it anymore, but if it persists for a third year, then we'll know something really unusual is going on."

Bond says that although the blob does not seem to be caused by climate change, it has many of the same effects for West Coast weather.

"This is a taste of what the ocean will be like in future decades," Bond said. "It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming."

Large-scale climate patterns that affect the Pacific Ocean indicate that waters off the West Coast have shifted toward warmer, less productive conditions that may affect marine species from seabirds to salmon, according to ...

(Phys.org) —Tim Palmer, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Oxford in the U.K. has published a somewhat controversial Perspective piece in the journal Science. In it, he theorizes that heavy thunderstorms ...

Recommended for you

Past studies have found that a variety of complex networks, from biological systems to social media networks, can exhibit universal topological characteristics. These universal characteristics, however, do not always translate ...

Metasurfaces are two-dimensional (2-D) metamaterials that can control scattering waves of a light beam. Their applications include thin-sheet polarizers, beam splitters, beam steerers and lenses. These structures can control ...

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) was launched on April 18 of last year with the primary objective of discovering transiting planets smaller than Neptune around stars bright enough for spectroscopic investigations ...

A pair of researchers at Purdue University has found a way to use a diatomic Ni-Ni catalyst to synthesize cyclopentenes. In their paper published in the journal Science, You-Yun Zhou and Christopher Uyeda describe their method ...

Photocatalysts – materials that trigger chemical reactions when hit by light – are important in a number of natural and industrial processes, from producing hydrogen for fuel to enabling photosynthesis.

Neutron stars are among the densest-known objects in the universe, withstanding pressures so great that one teaspoon of a star's material would equal about 15 times the weight of the moon. Yet as it turns out, protons—the ...

This is truly frightening, if it persists or repeats. It means that mankind has changed the hydrothermal equilibrium of the planet.

It will take a while to change it back, if this is the case. What has happened is that the driver of heat; gradients between the Equator and Poles have become diminished by polar ice recession. The oceans just aren't cold enough to drive anymore.

Of course we see a complementary effect with land, which heats up and cools down quickly-that and prevailing winds describe both US coasts adroitly.

It is obvious and predictable what is occurring, if we just think about it.

Of course, to a degree but, that intuition is impotent without underlying fundamentals ie Knowledge in conjunction with Training and especially Laboratory Experience & that means a keen understanding of "Experimental Methodology" - heard of any of those items, did u perhaps get ANY of them during tutelage of your claimed "4 technical degrees" ?

Silly prophet monkey... you are suppose to sit next to your gorrilicle puppet in mental class, instead both of you got all excited sitting next to class under a tree competing who can dig the deepest picking your noses... remember those wormies in the silkbox you think you're in will never go away, unless you graduate from mental school... you have to start somewhere.. ;)

Pollutants of this kind are all over the world, they all have to do with fossil fuels. Yet CO2 is the primary suspect. So it is not persistent, so what, it has been constant.

Well, climate scientists are plenty worried about methane too, as it is an even more potent GHG than CO2 ~ 25 times larger radiative response, molecule for molecule. Furthermore there are VAST reservoirs of methane trapped as clathrate hydrates (many hundreds of gigatonnes of carbon) at the bottom of the ocean and in permafrost, which may be destabilized as global surface temps increase (the "methane gun hypothesis").

But you have stated many times that you don't believe in the GHE, so why are YOU worried about methane?

DLK,Just to demonstrate to those with an open mind--If methane ain't doin' it, and water vapor ain't doin' it, and smog and soot and other from countries that don't regulate their atm. pollution ain't doin' it, then the very minor contribution from CO2 ain't doin' it either.

So then, maybe, when folks understand that warming is a secondary effect to climate change, and that changes in the hydrodynamics of the Earth are the primary, then...

DLK,Just to demonstrate to those with an open mind--If methane ain't doin' it, and water vapor ain't doin' it, and smog and soot and other from countries that don't regulate their atm. pollution ain't doin' it, then the very minor contribution from CO2 ain't doin' it either.

So then, maybe, when folks understand that warming is a secondary effect to climate change, and that changes in the hydrodynamics of the Earth are the primary, then...

You didn't answer my question. Why are you worried about methane, if you claim it's not impacting global climate through the GHE? By which physical mechanism do you implicate methane as a concern re: climate change?

There, there Mikey. You're a good boy, Mikey, you're so smart and everyone on this site sees it and knows you are very smart. Good boy, your mama loves you and your papa loves you. Everybody loves you and can see how smart you are.

Indeed he is a smart person reflected in each and every intelligent post of his, excellent response Mike, on the other hand, we need to find a way to get you and your gorilla sockpuppet into mental school as the (the 1 out of 5 ratings isn't doing you any good ;) but it seems going through the front door is not an option, so we need to find another solution for you two monkeys... :D

For sure Mike is definately one of the scientists i have a lot of respect for, for many other scientists too, thats why i like to compliment their hardwork, and make sure those with no respect and real understandanding of science get the discredit they come and boldly ask for.... now.... now...... it's only fair... ;)

Cue the nutbars to start debating the merits of denying the collective destruction of our planet. Oh wait I was a little late to the party.

yes indeed, a little late maybe, but never too late, feel free to stay, you'll love the show and all future comments on climate topics here, i'm here to stay for good, and so are the clowns, makes for one hilarious comedy and clearly differentiates between the real scientists and politically motivated clowns hell bent on destroying the earth... and spotlighting how utterly stupid they are by being so empty headed thinking no one realizes their idiocy... (sinking their own ship deeper by the article)... you can see why i'll never leave this site... :D

Believe it or not, we're all in agreement about the destruction of our planet. We disagree to the mechanism, but CleanEnergy's comment is pretty powerful and worthy of deeper consideration.

Sorry. I don't believe "destruction" of our planet, at least via the climate change phenomena, is imminent. It's far more likely to happen through nuclear holocaust or a natural disaster such as multiple volcanic eruptions or a meteor strike. The Earth isn't going to be destroyed just because it has extra CO2.

Believe it or not, we're all in agreement about the destruction of our planet. We disagree to the mechanism, but CleanEnergy's comment is pretty powerful and worthy of deeper consideration.

Sorry. I don't believe "destruction" of our planet, at least via the climate change phenomena, is imminent. It's far more likely to happen through nuclear holocaust or a natural disaster such as multiple volcanic eruptions or a meteor strike. The Earth isn't going to be destroyed just because it has extra CO2.

doesn't matter what you believe in, you get a resounding 1 out of 5 for your stupidity and that is self explanatory... ;)

Indeed he is a smart person reflected in each and every intelligent post of his, excellent response Mike, on the other hand, we need to find a way to get you and your gorilla sockpuppet into mental school as the (the 1 out of 5 ratings isn't doing you any good ;) but it seems going through the front door is not an option, so we need to find another solution for you two monkeys... :D

Muttering Mike never took a course in Differential Equations to become a Meteorologist, I did to become an Engineer.......from your standpoint that must make me "more than smart" if you think he is "smart".

The extreme atmospheric conditions associated with California's crippling drought are far more likely to occur under today's global warming conditions than in the climate that existed before humans emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases.

doesn't matter what you believe in, you get a resounding 1 out of 5 for your stupidity and that is self explanatory... ;)

Aww look, a middle school popularity contest... how adorable! There seem to be many of you passive-aggressive members who hide behind an anonymous rating system or make insult-laden posts toward those who don't believe your narrative. Unfortunately there are precious few of you capable of holding an intelligent conversation. If you're proud of that, by all means pat yourselves on the back. Reality couldn't care less how certain you are of imminent doom. You're simply joining the ranks of a growing list of the delusional... http://en.wikiped...c_events

Believe it or not, we're all in agreement about the destruction of our planet. We disagree to the mechanism, but CleanEnergy's comment is pretty powerful and worthy of deeper consideration.

Sorry. I don't believe "destruction" of our planet, at least via the climate change phenomena, is imminent. It's far more likely to happen through nuclear holocaust or a natural disaster such as multiple volcanic eruptions or a meteor strike. The Earth isn't going to be destroyed just because it has extra CO2.

You are quite right .. the Earth will not be destroyed, nobody has ever claimed that would be an outcome of climate change. Concerns over climate change are about livability of the planet for humans, and also the other plants and animals we depend on.

You are quite right .. the Earth will not be destroyed, nobody has ever claimed that would be an outcome of climate change. Concerns over climate change are about livability of the planet for humans, and also the other plants and animals

Then perhaps some need to be a little more cautious when they throw phrases like "destruction of the planet" around. To say the planet as we know it is changing would be accurate. But warming doesn't necessarily imply unsuitability for life. It simply means the life that is currently here will have to adapt with the changes. Populations that opt not to adjust will have the ability to move north and south (or to higher elevations) to remain in their native climes. Those that remain will use the tools of nature to adapt. If they can't they will die off leaving room for new species to emerge. I don't see anything dire or malevolent in this. Just a continuation of what has been happening for billions of years now.

Concerns over climate change are about livability of the planet for humans, and also the other plants and animals

To say the planet as we know it is changing would be accurate. But warming doesn't necessarily imply unsuitability for life. It simply means the life that is currently here will have to adapt with the changes. Populations that opt not to adjust will have the ability to move north and south (or to higher elevations) to remain in their native climes. Those that remain will use the tools of nature to adapt. If they can't they will die off leaving room for new species to emerge. I don't see anything dire or malevolent in this. Just a continuation of what has been happening for billions of years now.

That might be a reasonable point of view for some sort of galactic superbeing with a lifespan of several millenia, but I guess you'll understand if poor people in Bangladesh (and Florida) don't share your phlegmatic attitude about the situation.

--xstosTardWell, you can't be faulted for being born slow, or were you dropped as a baby?

aahh gorrila sockpuppet popping up... dropped as a baby is nothing against a gorilla falling out of a tree... ;)

Awww... was that your parents excuse after they deliberately dropped you?Can't fault them for not wanting a stupid ugly moron.

naa... your daddy dum named you after a gorilla, evident when you post... why even your name hints at it... ;) (and the 1 out of 5 raitng rubs some added shine to it)it is so much fun every time you post, you make everyone smile when an un-intelligent answer comes out of your snout, thats why i want you to stay... tomorrow we'll all laugh another day :D

Then perhaps some need to be a little more cautious when they throw phrases like "destruction of the planet" around.

Perhaps others need to be a little more cautious about who they accuse of throwing phrases like "destruction of the planet" around.

To say the planet as we know it is changing would be accurate. But warming doesn't necessarily imply unsuitability for life. It simply means the life that is currently here will have to adapt with the changes.

Ummmm, natural selection operates by killing. Maybe you forgot.

Populations that opt not to adjust will have the ability to move north and south (or to higher elevations) to remain in their native climes.

If they can't they will die off leaving room for new species to emerge.

So far the only larger mass extinction in the history of the planet than the one occurring now was "The Great Dying," AKA the Permian-Triassic extinction event, aka the Permian Extinction. There's a current article about the cause of of the P-T extinction on this site, and that cause appears to be ocean acidification, which is happening right now due to CO₂ being absorbed by the oceans at a rate unequaled since that event. Add that to habitat loss due to warming temperatures, and we're looking at a second Great Dying, which will likely include us.

Yes, life will go on. But we won't.

I don't see anything dire or malevolent in this. Just a continuation of what has been happening for billions of years now.

doesn't matter what you believe in, you get a resounding 1 out of 5 for your stupidity and that is self explanatory... ;)

Aww look, a middle school popularity contest... how adorable! There seem to be many of you passive-aggressive members who hide behind an anonymous rating system or make insult-laden posts

Naa simply a division highlighting the difference between the intelligent, the stupid and the dumb, intelligent people adores the way in which real science works and how brilliantly they are upvoted for their honest intelligent answers backed by imperical evidence (unlike the monkeys picking their noses when asked for evidence... ;) ...here you go monkey, back to mental school with gorilla and water monkey.... a.. a... aaaa, remember to turn the knob at the door this time, don't want no bumpy head patients in class tomorrow.... ;)

...estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone.

Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.

And global warming has barely even started. We're just now starting to see the first effects.

BTW I misspoke above; it's not yet as bad as the K-T event, the extinction of the dinosaurs, much less the P-T event, but if this rate keeps up it will be in a hundred years. And if global warming has only just started, it's not going to just keep up, it will accelerate.

Furthermore, the big risk, as scientists have been pointing out now for a couple decades, isn't warming; it's ocean acidification. And we now have pretty good proof of that, from that article on here about the cause of the P-T event being ocean acidification.

We really needed to start doing something about this about 1990 or so, but SOME PEOPLE are still denying and obstructing and obfuscating. If we start now we still may be looking at losing 30% or more of the Earth's biodiversity. If we don't, we may kill ourselves off too.

Last but definitely not least, it's not us turning off our lightswitches that will fix it; China is the big problem, along with the rest of Asia. China is set to build thousands or tens of thousands of coal-fired power plants over the next decade or two, and if they do, nothing the US or Europe does will matter.

Now that's the science, and that shows where the most gain is to be made. The effort will be extreme, but China MUST be stopped from building those power plants. And the only way to do that is to give them an alternative. THAT is the discussion we should be having, not smartass remarks about turning off lightswitches.

So therein lies the difference... one group fears the worst, observing with great detail and trepidation every change that science notes, the other admits that we've never been in control and that nature has systems to deal with change.

Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.

Deforestation is a concrete matter with a concrete solution. The vague "climate change" issue is not.

Last but definitely not least, it's not us turning off our lightswitches that will fix it; China is the big problem, along with the rest of Asia. China is set to build thousands or tens of thousands of coal-fired power plants over the next decade or two, and if they do, nothing the US or Europe does will matter.

Now that's the science, and that shows where the most gain is to be made. The effort will be extreme, but China MUST be stopped from building those power plants. And the only way to do that is to give them an alternative. THAT is the discussion we should be having, not smartass remarks about turning off lightswitches.

It's difficult to condemn China for doing something the West has done for a century and only began phasing out in the latter half of the 20th century. The United States still uses the most resources of any country per capita. http://en.wikiped...r_capita

So therein lies the difference... one group fears the worst, observing with great detail and trepidation every change that science notes, the other admits that we've never been in control and that nature has systems to deal with change.

Strawman detected. 30% dieoff isn't "natural variation." Two strawmen actually; there aren't any "systems" to deal with a mass extinction. And a lie: it's not "trepidation," and we're not cowards. You're the coward, because you need to lie.

Deforestation is a concrete matter with a concrete solution. The vague "climate change" issue is not.

Yet another strawman. It's not "deforestation."

It's difficult to condemn China for doing something the West has done for a century and only began phasing out in the latter half of the 20th century.

And an irrelevancy. It doesn't matter how much we use per capita, only the grand total, and we're not going to build thousands of coal fired power plants in the next twenty years.

Still not one iota of science. You're just another denier, full of lies, tricky arguments that are logically false, and invective. Wake up, fool.

Good bye.

That this post got so many 5 star ratings is disturbing. It seems that even the most vehement AGWers would prefer to lay the blame for climate change at the feet of someone else and pretend their hands are clean. Our energy consumption is NOT irrelevant in the least. We produce nearly 3 times the CO2 per person vs. China. It means we are nearly the most wasteful and polluting people in the world.

As I've said many times before, lets do something to improve efficiency and reduce our resource demand on the planet... but NOT under the context of over-hyped "climate change" because there is absolutely nothing we can do about that.

As I've said many times before, lets do something to improve efficiency and reduce our resource demand on the planet... but NOT under the context of over-hyped "climate change" because there is absolutely nothing we can do about that.

There is a lot we can do about climate change, and what can be done by human accelerated climate change has been extensively covered on this site, there's much more to this world than you living inside your little silkworm box with papa oil making you believe u are clever making false claims backed with pseudo science, when in reality, you and all your clown puppets are being proven dumb and stupid by the comment on each and every topic... ;)

there's much more to this world than you living inside your little silkworm box with papa oil making you believe u are clever making false claims backed with pseudo science, when in reality, you and all your clown puppets are being proven dumb and stupid by the comment on each and every topic... ;)

That statement doesn't even deserve a reply. And how can people down vote a post with a couple simple, referenced statistics? Some of you are just.... bizarre.

there's much more to this world than you living inside your little silkworm box with papa oil making you believe u are clever making false claims backed with pseudo science, when in reality, you and all your clown puppets are being proven dumb and stupid by the comment on each and every topic... ;)

That statement doesn't even deserve a reply. And how can people down vote a post with a couple simple, referenced statistics? Some of you are just.... bizarre.

first try to learn inside the silkwormbox ure in.. (i know it's hard..the way the wormies are looking at you and all, but you have to try... ;) leave thinking outside of the box for the real scientist people...

Bots or people who behave like them? Either is disturbing. Are people so ideologically stuck that even nonsensical comments like those above by HeloMenelo get rated highly.... just because they agree with his/her politics? It's disheartening interacting with supposed adults who don't seem to have the ability to do anything besides make middle-school level insults.

Bots, Sockpuppets, cyberbullies, all three? There are some real princes here. It is quite possible Helo, Mike, Stumpy, thermo, others are using more than one username, but are definitely part of the same cyber-clique or bully squad.

They never have dissenting opinions from another, and harass people like you and I, usually until they vacate the board. They harass dissenters so well, only people very confident in their science, if you will, survive long. Mostly by taking what a poster says and asking the "why's" like a two year old in an offensive manner. They rarely have anything inspiring or thought provoking to say and follow a website called skeptical science.com. http://www.popula...nce.html

Apparently these folks are getting creepier.

docile

Docile-Dark Matter is no mystery, it is just cold planets far from stars, imagine Jupiter-like planets in the galaxies unwarmed by internal or external energies. You can't see them, they are ~ 2K, etc..

docile

Docile-Dark Matter is no mystery, it is just cold planets far from stars, imagine Jupiter-like planets in the galaxies unwarmed by internal or external energies. You can't see them, they are ~ 2K, etc..

Oh those silly cosmologists and astronomers! Always making things all science-y and complicated when there's a simple answer staring them right in the face. If only they'd thought to ask the Dunning-Kruger crowd, they'd be so much further ahead in their research!

They harass dissenters so well, only people very confident in their science, if you will, survive long. Mostly by taking what a poster says and asking the "why's" like a two year old in an offensive manner.

What you fail to realize is that this is not harassment at all, but the way that scientific discourse is conducted. If you have a theory that is contrary to the accepted models of how things work, you should expect (and welcome) logical challenges to your idea, and be prepared to answer all comers in straightforward terms about how your model works. You should also expect that if you CANNOT answer such questions, or give answers that contradict fundamental physics, then your alternative theories will be dismissed for the amateurish pseudo-science that they are. If, after all of that has come to pass, you continue to proliferate the same debunked pseudoscience over and over, then any other scientific claims you make will likely be similarly dismissed.

It means that mankind has changed the hydrothermal equilibrium of the planet

It rather means, that the global warming hasn't prevailing anthropogenic origin, as I expected. It can be driven with heat generated inside of soil and marine water directly - probably with interaction of dark matter.

Why do you need DM to explain this, when current models for the radiative balance of the Earth from solar radiation explain global temperature measurements fairly well (once the Greenhouse effect from the atmosphere is accounted for)? It is solar radiation that heats the surface layers of the land and oceans in that model, and there is no need for any additional sources of heat. Why do you think there is a need to look elsewhere?

DLK-Hi, thermo. How many sock-puppets do you need to fail to make your point on this forum. Stumpy, thermo and now Dark Lord Kelvin.

Zarking pathetic.

Don't forget Runrig, Magney, and others to add to your list of socks. You have so cleverly determined that since we all have no respect for your ice bowl and unfounded assumptions we must all be the same person. Because, certainly, no sane scientist could miss the beauty of your blindingly clear argument. We bow to your amazing expertise... (of course that was me being as ironic as I can but still not completely covering the idiocy we know as WaterBowl/Alche/Greg...)

Bots or people who behave like them? Either is disturbing. Are people so ideologically stuck that even nonsensical comments like those above by HeloMenelo get rated highly.... just because they agree with his/her politics? It's disheartening interacting with supposed adults who don't seem to have the ability to do anything besides make middle-school level insults.

now now monkey... thinking inside the box won't get u to kindergarden yet, first get out the box, pass mental school then you can try kindergarden, but i'm here to help show everyone the cloens from the scientists..... ;) ;) ;) ok the ratings says it all but i like to rub it in for you bunnies are competing so well for that special nose wax i hand out for the clown that makes the dumbest comment... ;)

Bots, Sockpuppets, cyberbullies, all three? There are some real princes here. It is quite possible Helo, Mike, Stumpy, thermo, others are using more than one username, but are definitely part of the same cyber-clique or bully squad.

They never have dissenting opinions from another, and harass people like you and I, usually until they vacate the board. They harass dissenters so well, only people very confident in their science, if you will, .....Apparently these folks are getting creepier.

The wormies in your little silkwormbox are creepy looking i know... one day you might break the chains and discover life outside the box, just keep trying ;) but will give you a pointer (siding with big oil and politics will make them grow creepier) and in turn make you and your associates look dumber.

aaahh those one out of fives looks so good on your record, don't you shy away now little monkey...keep 'em coming ....

Captain Stumpy, Thermodynamics, Dark Lord and Kelvin, Well done on your outstanding comments, as for the rest water monkey and his endles gang of clown puppets... keep rollin in those 1 out of 5s, i have too many nose wax cans in my shed... they must go...and soon... lol... :D

@Thermoetctric, and yet you reply withing minutes on a topic of which you were not a part. Did DLK TELL you I made the comment, or do you just monitor old threads on the off chance your name will be used?

(It's rhetorical)(Rhetorical means that the question answers itself.)(So please, no answer is needed.)(Because everyone knows what you are going to say.)

PATHETIC.

and Here's Helo demonstrating how wonderful a sockpupet he is for Mike_M. I don't even need to know what he wrote to know what he said.

Boys, or boy, if we already know what you are going to say AND it is not on topic, WHY are you posting?

Captain Stumpy, Thermodynamics, Dark Lord and Kelvin, Well done on your outstanding comments, as for the rest water monkey and his endles gang of clown puppets... keep rollin in those 1 out of 5s, i have too many nose wax cans in my shed... they must go...and soon... lol... :D

@WP I am curious why you think I am a "sock-puppet" for anyone else, let alone thermo. His posts and my own have nothing in common, except that we both respect scientific methodology and rational analysis, I suppose.

It's also odd to me that you assume that all the other people who criticize/debunk your "theories" using fundamental principles of chemistry and physics must also be "clones" of some sort. I guess it's all part and parcel of the Dunning-Kruger pathology, telling yourself whatever it takes to minimize the impact and importance of those who don't accept the validity of your "theories".

I am just curious ... has ANYONE with any sort of scientific acumen ever expressed support for and/or agreement with your theories on one of these sorts of anonymous forums? Or is it just you against the world?

DLK,Very many people express agreement with them, or at least can not derive solid arguments to counter them, much like yourself and your skeptigoons.

My principles are very basic, use only principles of physics and have positive direct correlations that are obvious.

Usually what occurs is I drive them down the road. Them with head-nods all the ways. Arrive at the conclusion. Then they revert to whatever they believe in the first place.

With prolonged contact they start to have my ideas as if they were their own. Howhot, thermo, runrig, and even Maggie have accused me of being wrong on some of the cornerstones of my basic arguments. To clarify; they tried to tell me I was wrong based on the principles I've been expounding. The oceans warming after polar ice has receded sufficiently, for example.

It's par for the course. I used to say the same things to environmentalists back in college. They'd be saying how the Earth was going to be 4c warmer by 2012, and I'd say the same things I say on on this site now.

The Earth is buffered by so many things, the most significant of which WAS, was, was! polar ice/glaciers, which were very powerful. Now with their recession, particularly in the Northern latitudes, and I remind you heat/weather flows from equator to pole, the oceans have begun that burden. We see what happens.

And now, we are back on topic. Because this kind of thing in this article is exactly what heat, not CO2, and simple modeling of the Earth predicts.

Very many people express agreement with them, or at least can not derive solid arguments to counter them, much like yourself

I don't know what channel you've been watching, but I have debunked every one of your "theories" I have come into contact with. I have done so quite thoroughly, and with detailed explanations of how you were either ignoring or misconstruing various fundamental physical principles along the way. You had no answers, other than to get increasingly nasty and dismissive and start calling me names .. and of course to keep repeating your freshly debunked statements over and over.

My principles are very basic, use only principles of physics and have positive direct correlations that are obvious.

That would indeed be good, except it's not what you do.

Usually what occurs is I drive them down the road. Them with head-nods all the ways

Not with me .. I raised issues right from the start, but you refused to provide the requested explanations/sources.

The Earth is buffered by so many things, the most significant of which WAS, was, was! polar ice/glaciers, which were very powerful. Now with their recession, particularly in the Northern latitudes, and I remind you heat/weather flows from equator to pole, the oceans have begun that burden. We see what happens.

And now, we are back on topic. Because this kind of thing in this article is exactly what heat, not CO2, and simple modeling of the Earth predicts.

I'll accept you awe now.;D

Don't hold your breath. You have never once given any indication that you even understand the physical mechanisms behind the greenhouse effect well enough to justify having an opinion about whether or not they are valid, let alone to summarily dismiss them as you do. You have your little toy experiments that miss the point completely, and you give numbers that don't match accepted MEASURED values, and refuse to explain how they are calculated. That may be simple, but it ain't science.

Not with me .. I raised issues right from the start, but you refused to provide the requested explanations/sources.

The usual case this clown can back absolutely nothing up with solid scientific proof... aaahh i'm starting to hand out more and more wax cans just as predicted, plenty more coming his way, here water monkey monkey... ;)

Don't hold your breath. You have never once given any indication that you even understand the physical mechanisms behind the greenhouse effect well enough to justify having an opinion about whether or not they are valid, let alone to summarily dismiss them as you do. You have your little toy experiments that miss the point completely, and you give numbers that don't match accepted MEASURED values, and refuse to explain how they are calculated. That may be simple, but it ain't science.

lol you cracked me up with this reply very well said DLK :D this clown is doing his own experiments inside his little silkwormbox while being enslaved by those nasty silkwormies he believes is watching him... :D

YES, it IS 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the Sun.But, if it were equal, we'd no longer be alive.If it were 1/10th more, we'd all be dead,If it were 1/100th we'd all be dead.If it were 1/1000th, eeh, I really don't know, it don't sound good,but since it's 1/10000 (or so), it simply and but subtlety biases heat upward.

Since it is released on the ground it is more profound than the Sun, if you compare apples to apples.What was your username before, again?

If you want to know how the CO2 value is calculated, it takes more work than I am prepared to devote right now. It cannot be done from concentration alone; you need to do an integral over the appropriate IR spectral range, and also over a column extending up through the troposphere, accounting for the temp gradient. The ScienceofDoom website gives lots of details on how to do it here:http://scienceofd...-effect/

YES, it IS 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the Sun.But, if it were equal, we'd no longer be alive.If it were 1/10th more, we'd all be dead,If it were 1/100th we'd all be dead.

What is your basis for those claims? Do you realize that the surface of the earth itself is a emitter of thermal radiation, giving off about 400 W/m^2 according to the Stefan-Bolzman law? Did you read the Texas A&M link I posted earlier? An additional 240 W/m^2 would change things, but it's not obvious "we'd be dead".

Since it is released on the ground it is more profound than the Sun, if you compare apples to apples.

You really don't have a clue, do you? 240 W/m^2 is the radiated power from the sun *that gets absorbed by the Earth*. Radiation from the short-wave part of the solar spectrum passes through the atmosphere pretty efficiently, with about 170 W/m^2 getting absorbed *at the surface* by the ocean and land. Still about 4 OM bigger than 0.03 from anthropogenic sources.

Didn't do the math for CO2 either, tried to weasel out of it, blah, blah, blah, big predictable surprise.

I postponed answering because I have other (better) things to do right now ... I seem to you remember doing similar things in the past when you were too busy to engage with a complicated calculation for someone else's benefit. Furthermore, I told you exactly where you can get the information for yourself if you don't want to wait for me to summarize it here for you.

In short, you can revert to dismissive jerk mode if you really want to, but it won't help validate anything you have said here, any more than it did on other posts where I systematically dismantled your deeply flawed "theories", poorly thought-through arguments, and error-ridden calculations.

I'd also suggest the ScienceOfDoom series on atmospheric radiation that starts here: http://scienceofd...art-one/ . This would be useful for WP since he's indicated that he doesn't really understand that at all.

Build nuclear plants and invest in solar power satellites, "jeffensley." Save the planet. Remember, China will be harder hit than the US, Europe, and Russia by rising sea levels. When a billion Chinese decide the gummint screwed up, all the nuclear weapons in the world won't save your sorry a$$. They'll be coming for you. I wouldn't care to be in your shoes, and I have at least some sympathy. But don't build thousands of coal plants; that sympathy will evaporate in a heartbeat.

And how paranoid? I have no desire to watch half a billion Chinese die. I am an ethical man. I advocate giving you another choice that will save us all, and still get you what you need. And I guarantee you this: if you continue down the path you are following there are those who will express their racism by advocating your destruction; and you could have dealt with the ones like me, instead of the ones like them. You will regret this time, "jeffensley," and remember it as one of the times you could have changed things and survived.

Hmmm, most of the actual scientists who predict global warming seem to be professors.

Are you seriously alleging professors aren't educated?

Preposterous.

Yes, he is unabashedly claiming that ... it seems to be another aspect of the Dunning-Kruger pathology. When faced with the collapse of their precious "theories" under the cruel weight of logic, reason and facts, they could accept their mistakes and move on, discarding said "theories" as incorrect and useless. Instead they double-down, making increasingly bizarre statements that are even more obviously wrong, often in the form vitriolic (and ludicrous) attacks against the credentials of the actual experts in the field. After all, nothing is as powerful or persuasive to them as their own "enlightened" narratives, bouncing around inside the echo chambers of their skulls.

DLK, speaking of sloppiness, which username did you think you were using in the above posts? Let me guess, since you were (in you own mind) supposed to be reasonable and educated, you thought you signed on with username "thermodynamics," but accidently signed as DLK.

Incidentally, several posts above I saw similarities to Captain Stumpy, but since I wanted to see if Stumpy and thermodynamics were the same, AND you were the same, I accused your Stumpiness as being thermoness. See what I did there?

Start with just ONE of these, from first principles PROVE your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & your specific figure of 0.00009 W/m^2 has *ANY* basis in reality ?

Y can't U do that ?

Have been reminding you to prove your claim very often, Y can't you do that Water_Prophet ?

Heard of a kid who "cried wolf" ?

Your faked claims show you have nil credibility & are anti-Science.

ie. Science = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" but, you Water_Prophet have NO discipline in ANY of your claims, Scientists can & do show workings but, YOU ignore & ONLY make idle feeble claims

& as per form Mikey, who has already been discredited more times than I care to think about, claiming and posting degrees in what? Pyrotechnics? Electronics? can't even talk the talk on them or the background you'd need to get them.

DLK, speaking of sloppiness, which username did you think you were using in the above posts? Let me guess, since you were (in you own mind) supposed to be reasonable and educated, you thought you signed on with username "thermodynamics," but accidently signed as DLK.

Incidentally, several posts above I saw similarities to Captain Stumpy, but since I wanted to see if Stumpy and thermodynamics were the same, AND you were the same, I accused your Stumpiness as being thermoness. See what I did there?

..Mikey, who has already been discredited more times than I care to think about, claiming and posting degrees in what? Pyrotechnics? Electronics? can't even talk the talk on them or the background you'd need to get them

No. You asked I prove my claims, I did but, you have NEVER proven ANY of your claims, especially the most feeble faked eg CO2 !

Reminding you, this is a website, and you have no right to expect an answer.Reminding you your behavior on this site gives you no right to expect an answer.Reminding you, if there are any claims I haven't proven, expressly, it is because you like to post the above to the detriment of the site, or you don't have the neurons to understand them.

My facebook is set not to release information to people I don't know. That's not complicated is it?PS Why, do you think Gregory M Tyler is special? RiskAoA is listed on my facebook, publicly.

Reminding you, this is a website, and you have no right to expect an answer.Reminding you your behavior on this site gives you no right to expect an answer.Reminding you, if there are any claims I haven't proven, expressly, it is because you like to post the above to the detriment of the site, or you don't have the neurons to understand them.My facebook is set not to release information to people I don't know

LIAR !

Water_Prophet, you made claims in public re degrees doh, its that simple !

This is a Science site, now be a good little fetus & PROVE your claims, why can't you ?????????

What the hell are you talking about? All I ever talk about in my posts is science .. I'd LIKE to talk about serious scientific topics, but I always seem to get drawn into these situations where you post some utter nonsense, I point out where you went wrong, and then you dive further down your little rabbit hole of delusional pseudo-science throwing up red herring after red herring to distract from your original mistake (with the latest example being this fantasy about your detractors using clone accounts to debunk you .. why bother? debunked is debunked), and never providing one shred of justification or supporting evidence for your garbage.

So, back on topic. As I showed, the 0.03 W/m^2 follows quite naturally from (your own) values of total power generation and the surface area of the Earth. If as you claim, my calc. is wrong, it should be trivial to point out my mistake. What part do you think I got wrong?

DLK, speaking of sloppiness, which username did you think you were using in the above posts? Let me guess, since you were (in you own mind) supposed to be reasonable and educated, you thought you signed on with username "thermodynamics," but accidently signed as DLK.

Incidentally, several posts above I saw similarities to Captain Stumpy, but since I wanted to see if Stumpy and thermodynamics were the same, AND you were the same, I accused your Stumpiness as being thermoness. See what I did there?

DLK, you MULTIPLY by time to convert watt hours to watts, just for beginners, you'll need to go to seconds.I can't tell if you are really this obtuse, or pretend to be for the pleasure of other viewers.

What I don't get is, if you're wrong, why keep playing the harp about it?

DLK, you MULTIPLY by time to convert watt hours to watts, just for beginners, you'll need to go to seconds.I can't tell if you are really this obtuse, or pretend to be for the pleasure of other viewers

This is a Science site, now be a good little fetus & PROVE your claims, why can't you ?????????

In your wiki link, they give energy (in W-hr) delivered over a year, which can be expressed as an average power since it's just (total energy)/(total time). That is the calculation I did for you, but it appears I gave you too much benefit of the doubt for being able to fill in the blanks for yourself.

Docile-Dark Matter is no mystery, it is just cold planets far from stars, imagine Jupiter-like planets in the galaxies unwarmed by internal or external energies. You can't see them, they are ~ 2K, etc..

No. You complete ignoramus.

You show you know NIL about radiative emissions, how can these/any planets possibly be below the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation level of ~ 2.7K - Capisce' ?

Heard of asymptotes, just how long do you thing it takes a planet to drop to below CMBR, LOL ;-) ?

Making more claims again Water_Prophet, without a shred of any thought, evidence or rationale ?

Why can't you have an original thought Water_Prophet, is it because you lack those "4 technical degrees" you claimed publicly, so you can't connect physics with maths with feeble intuition one bit ! ?

Please get a BASIC education in Physics, you NEED it desperately Water_Prophet

So sad, not one original thought, no education and above all a Pathological Liar !

Reminding you, this is a website, and you have no right to expect an answer.Reminding you your behavior on this site gives you no right to expect an answer.Reminding you, if there are any claims I haven't proven, expressly, it is because you like to post the above to the detriment of the site, or you don't have the neurons to understand them.My facebook is set not to release information to people I don't know

LIAR !

Water_Prophet, you made claims in public re degrees doh, its that simple !

This is a Science site, now be a good little fetus & PROVE your claims, why can't you ?????????

O man watermonkey is really out to get proven, yet again to be as dumb as a rock... he gets his kicks by proving how utterly clueless and dumb he is, and so do i when i put the shine on his clowny nose... ;)

The ONLY pathetic one is Water_Prophet, who has NEVER proven/qualified ANY claims EVER !

Grow up or go away !

I vote Water_Prophet be banned, all he does is make idle claims obfuscating Science.

Water_Prophet has NIL integrity.

Water_Prophet is a Pathological Liar !

There are so many showing immense patience with you Water_Prophet, you FAILED yet again.

Now now, watermonkey is still in mental school, can't grow up yet, but only the classes he manages to attend without knocking himself out at the front door because of forgetting to turn the doorknob.

First he needs to understand how to turn the doorknob, then he can start with a kindergarden education (in short, it's probably not going to happen in our lifetime so i'll be having fun with this clown for a long time to come still) and so will everyone else..... :D

Then disappear NOW as you are NOT welcome, or if remotely possible in years get earnestly a formal education as many here and become a true scientist and prove/qualify ALL your claims or don't f..king bother to come back ever, vamoosh, begone you complete IGNORANT d..k !

One final, were you deliberately obfuscating by implying that I meant 3/10th of the average Sun's radiation that makes it to Earth?3/10th of the fluctuation, usually associated with sunspot changes. Why? Because fluctuations in the Sun's output have noticeable effects on climate. It fluctuates ~1/1366, of 255, are things in perspective for you now?

Wow wow wow. This is a new low, even for you. Just admit it .. you made a mistake. It can happen to anyone, but not admitting it leaves you locked in place intellectually (which explains a lot, actually). I have practically rubbed your nose in the right way to do the problem, yet you are steadfastly refusing to accept it.

Google does unit conversion for you

Who needs google for something so simple? I don't, but if you do, by all means check my answer however you want to .. I am quite confident you will get the same answer (if you set it up correctly).

There are only two places I can have gone wrong .. either it was with the numerical part, or else with the units. I showed you the units part .. do you think I made a mistake in there somewhere? Can you point it out? Or do you think I punched something into my calculator incorrectly? Why is this so difficult for you?

You have failed many times to prove/qualify any of you claims eg Degrees, CO2, persistence etc etc

Go away FFS & allow room for real budding scientists & the earnest who seek an education with integrity room to discuss so they are NOT distracted and misled by your failures of logic, maths & education !

Actually, DLK, thermy, etc. I do owe you an apology.0.03watts/m2 is correct. I thought you were contradicting me on the 3/10th being .3. Given your history, you can see why I'd assume you were wrong.and so 255watts/m2 /1366 is the fluctuation, of the Sun, which implies 0.2 watts/m2 drives noticeable climate change which means that 1/10th of it or ~0.03watts/m2, is going to produce climatic effects. Especially since it is an addition at ground level.

I think I got confused between your assertions and Mikey's idiocy. You can see how I might do that.

I think it will also convince you of quite a bit of error in wiki's 1.5watts/m2. That would mean it is above the Sun's fluctuations.

Now think about what insulation on that order of magnitude would MEAN, and if you are a reasonable person, this should change your opinion.

Actually, DLK, thermy, etc. I do owe you an apology.0.03watts/m2 is correct.

Fine, accepted .. glad we can get past that .. because now we need to move onto your next misunderstanding, namely:

255watts/m2 /1366 is the fluctuation, of the Sun, which implies 0.2 watts/m2 drives noticeable climate change

I honestly can't tell what you are trying to say here. It looks like you are trying to compare the (average) radiative flux absorbed by the earth (~240 W/m^2) with the total solar radiative flux at the (average) distance of the earth from the sun (~1366 W/m^2). That's ok I guess, but only the first number is really meaningful for understanding the radiation balance of the earth. The other mistake you seem to have made is that you are assigning units of W/m^2 to the ratio of those two values, when it is in fact dimensionless (since they both have the same units).

Let's leave it there for now .. did I understand what you were trying to show correctly?

Negative, buddy, the fluctuations in the Sun have significant impacts on climate. In fact you can see them. 1998, 1978, etc.. Not exactly a 100% correlation, within +/- <2yrs.

The Sun fluctuates by 1/1350 or so, it is not the distance from Earth, it is the Sun's energy out put. It puts out more or less energy in cycles. Therefore, order of magnitude, climate is easily affected by 1/1350 of the Sun's 255watts/m2 to Earth. http://en.wikiped...data.png

This is pretty conservative to my arguments, considering the Sun's total isolation.

If you can find me one expert on either side of the climate debate who will tell you otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Because I've spoken with hundreds, both quantitatively familiar with the Sun's contribution's (a handful of those hundred) and just familiar with them.

Anyone, even wiki and it's associated source claiming there is an effect greater than this is touting propaganda.

The Sun fluctuates by 1/1350 or so, it is not the distance from Earth, it is the Sun's energy out put. It puts out more or less energy in cycles. Therefore, order of magnitude, climate is easily affected by 1/1350 of the Sun's 255watts/m2 to Earth. http://en.wikiped...data.png

Ok, I understand what you were trying to say now .. fluctuation is +/- 0.5 W/m^2 out of 1366 W/m^2, and you just applied the ratio (1/1366) to the absorbed power to come up with 0.2 W/m^2 (really +/- 0.1 W/m^2). That much seems fine, but I'll just mention again that I don't agree at all with the conclusions you draw from that number relative to 0.03 W/m^2 from anthro sources.

I guess we need to tackle the details of the CO2 calculation so you can see why 1.5 W/m^2 is reasonable. it would help if you read up on those ScienceOfDoom links first. I have stuff to do for the next several hours, but I'll try to get back to it tonight.

Well, DL, draw what conclusions you like, but draw them. Obviously, this is new information to you, so you should see how it impacts your views.

The Sun's fluctuations provide an excellent baseline for the magnitudes of energy required to create climate change. Think about it, if the Sun changed significantly more or less, life on Earth would be dramatically different. Even a little and climate would be markedly different.

Something that adds, not just cycles, more than these effects MUST have profound and inarguable effects on climate. Since people continue to argue, it don't pass.

I think you should integrate the new information you've just learned before I re-read "Science of Doom" propaganda. For example, the world ain't gonna be doomed, regardless.

I guess we need to tackle the details of the CO2 calculation so you can see why 1.5 W/m^2 is reasonable. it would help if you read up on those ScienceOfDoom links first.

I wish you lots of luck really, Water_Prophet has Never taken ANY interest or EVER responded to any query whatsoever re his claim CO2's radiative forcing is other than a claimed 0.00009W/m^2, why, well because for months he has claimed CO2 is a "red herring" and is "anemic", his Dunning Kruger & egotistical need for personal aggrandizement precludes a change in position, despite a minor correction, that's just a tactic & have seen it before with those he wished to ingratiate & fails !

Strange thing is Water_Prophet's claim of 0.00009W/m^2 is in "great agreement" with wiki's 1.5 W/m^2 despite Water_Prophet's being 16,666 times LOWER.

Frankly DarkLordKelvin, Water_Prophet is playing with you & will waste your time, sorry but the evidence of his pattern is historical :-(

Well, DL, draw what conclusions you like, but draw them. Obviously, this is new information to you, so you should see how it impacts your views. The Sun's fluctuations provide an excellent baseline for the magnitudes of energy required to create climate change. Think about it, if the Sun changed significantly more or less, life on Earth would be dramatically different. Even a little and climate would be markedly different.Something that adds, not just cycles, more than these effects MUST have profound and inarguable effects on climate. Since people continue to argue, it don't pass.I think you should integrate the new information you've just learned before I re-read "Science of Doom" propaganda. For example, the world ain't gonna be doomed, regardless.

Yet, you STILL have failed to prove your claim of CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2 has a foundation, ie ANY basis at all ?

Something that adds, not just cycles, more than these effects MUST have profound and inarguable effects on climate. Since people continue to argue, it don't pass.I think you should integrate the new information you've just learned before I re-read "Science of Doom" propaganda. For example, the world ain't gonna be doomed, regardless.Yet, you STILL have failed to prove your claim of CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2 has a foundation, ie ANY basis at all ?

Why Water_Prophet can't you prove it, you mislead :-(

i have a solution for watermonkey, next time you go to mental class, wear a crash helmet, at least it will spare u a few brain cells... mind you.... are there any left... ? lol.... ;D

DLK et&al, all this time of mocking, and you didn't even understand what I was saying.

I can forgive you pretty easily though, it is not like this very basic information enters into the mainstream, media, etc..

And how could it really? Journals don't usually report old news. It must be in some way novel. What would the report to Geophysical Letters look like? "Solar Fluctuations still affecting Climate." LOL.

Anyway I would like to know how this new info affects your world view, much like the Homosphere should have.

What Da S said is actually fine with, so long as you don't ankle bite as well.

However, before you go, one courtesy. Allow me to know how knowing this information, that CO2 is supposed to be 10x more powerful than solar variations and that fossil fuels energy emissions are right where they need to be to cause what we see, had affected your perspective.

Anyway I would like to know how this new info affects your world view, much like the Homosphere should have.

Here is a good example of how WaterDummy actually does learn things now and then and then he pretends it is obvious to him and draws really stupid conclusions from good data. On May 7 2014 I learned about the homosphere and taught it to Alche. He still doesn't understand it but he thinks he does and thinks it helps prove CO2 is not important. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Here is where I learned about and taught WaterBowl about the homosphere.

DLK et&al, all this time of mocking, and you didn't even understand what I was saying.

Don't be such a jackass, of course I understood what you were saying. You have made so many trivial mistakes with calculations and fundamental science in your posts that I didn't know how to parse your most recent one, and I wanted to make sure I knew what you meant.

Your point is a staple of the denier camp, to wit: nothing man-made can ever have more of an environmental impact than the sunspot cycle. It's just as arbitrary and wrong when you say as when they do. It's not like the solar fluctuations aren't well-understood AND incorporated into the models. Please read this link from the American Chemical Society, playing particular attention to the figure at the end. https://www.acs.o...ing.html

Also, why do you accept measurements and models from some scientists and not others? Solar cycle:right, but CO2 forcing:wrong?

I am pretty sure you couldn't understand it to save you life, but upon inspection, for me, I input water vapor and contrast it with CO2, and come up with my usual conclusions. Why can't you do that?

You are either wrong, or utterly full of it. You are dealing with real mathematical physics here, and these are the equations that ultimately lead to the accepted result for CO2. If you would look at Science of Doom, you would see in detail how this equation (among others) is properly applied to this problem.

Why is it you didn't acknowledge that the homosphere's mechanics worked against your position? They worked great for mine.

Anyway, since you can't be mature enough to answer as DLK, but have to obfuscate as your sockpuppet... I guess anything to not admit you learned something contrary to your opinion.

DLK, So, you seem to repeat that you understand what I am saying, but you keep claiming I am a Denier. I am not a Denier, I was an absolutest about Anthromorphic Climate long before anyone considered it fact.

It would be nice for someone to consider that my crack-pot understanding of physics lead me to be adamant about climate change, many many years before it was popular or accepted.

We can come back to radiative forcing if you like, but if you are a M. Phys, then taking it down to two gases should make it very easy for you.

But in the meantime, we are talking about the ~0.03Watts/m2 from fossil fuels, the 0.18Watts/m2 from solar fluctuations, and some how ~1.5watts/m2 being something to be taken seriously.

I am going to go back to being civil, and I hope you forgive previous transgressions. Please respond as DLK, and only DLK. If one of the other blocked folks has something interesting, you will have to reprint it.

As a mark of sincerity, I will research, as I should have done long ago, the accepted impacts of the Solar Cycle. Though in hindsight, these have become more and more difficult to find. They may be easier to derive, and if so, I'll pass my method on over to you for criticism.

But to keep objectives clear, the object is to demonstrate that 1.5watts/m2 is inline with observations, instead of a spurious number needed to show it's more important than other factors.

Honestly, I am not sure how you'll do it; cycled 0.18Watts/m2 has profound effects, a "DC offset" of 1.5Watts/m2 should be killing us. The Sun after all brings us from 2.7 K to ~298K... if you see what I mean.

However, before you go, one courtesy. Allow me to know how knowing this information, that CO2 is supposed to be 10x more powerful than solar variations and that fossil fuels energy emissions are right where they need to be to cause what we see, had affected your perspective

He claimed CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009W/m^2, despite reminders has NEVER shown how it was arrived at, it is out by 16,666 x

Water_Prophet mumbled about knowing "..fuels energy emissions are right.." yet as before there is NOTHING to prove or even qualify such naive claim.

Water_Prophet implies he knows there is a proven relationship between observed climate change & the heat generated by fossil fuel use but, again, Water_Prophet has never shown such working.

Isn't it better to directly challenge those that make claims re Science so the momentum of the progress of Science is NOT obfuscated by the immature ?

The first couple of times, maybe. After that it's a waste of time and effort, because you're dealing with someone who will lie to make their point, and isn't going to admit they're lying or stop. Wrestling with pigs is a waste of time; it gets you dirty, you can't win, and the pig enjoys it.

Honestly, I am not sure how you'll do it; cycled 0.18Watts/m2 has profound effects, a "DC offset" of 1.5Watts/m2 should be killing us

No. Well only if Water_Prophet has no understanding about specific heat, radiative heat transfer, thermal inertia, spectroscopy - ie Just like someone who has NOT achieved the "4 technical degrees" as Water_Prophet claimed.

Where is there anything Water_Prophet can show which proves his claim "should be killing us" ?

Water_Prophet claimed

The Sun after all brings us from 2.7 K to ~298K...

Not by itself obviously, this is one reason I urged Water_Prophet to look at Mars where CO2 is high, solar insolation is less than Earth and Mars has negligible atmospheric mass ie its pressure is less than 1psi, yet still even after all this Mars can reach 20 deg C in the shade...

Wouldn't it be far smarter for Water_Prophet to focus on the Science & the highest ethic of the process which demands some discipline ?

The first couple of times, maybe. After that it's a waste of time and effort, because you're dealing with someone who will lie to make their point, and isn't going to admit they're lying or stop. Wrestling with pigs is a waste of time; it gets you dirty, you can't win, and the pig enjoys it.

No.This is why you must focus on the Science and please not bring this down to a level of wrestling, I think that is beneath your best ethic and mature intentions.

The point has been made & perhaps you missed it in your absence that Water_Prophet has changed his position, that in conjunction with addressing claims is a worthwhile exercise because, as I have stated, the younger naive & still uneducated read these posts and it is helpful to them to ensure we address claims and where possible maintain the accuracy of the progress of Science.

Da Schneib, you can ignore Water_Prophet & probably best you also ignore my posts by using the button please, cheers

Mike, you don't lie, so I won't ignore you- and I think I made my point, so I'll drop it now if you will. But I hope you'll remember that feeding a troll makes them troll more. The only way they stop trolling is if they don't get fed.

Anyway I would like to know how this new info affects your world view, much like the Homosphere should have.

Here is a good example of how WaterDummy actually does learn things now and then and then he pretends it is obvious to him and draws really stupid conclusions from good data.

The silkwormies are looking at him strange... thats why he sees things differently and imaginary... come now monkey you have to first try and overcome your silkwormy monsters before u can step outside the box... i know it's hard.. but with the help of the clever peoples at mental school you can overcome anything and see the light, you can do it.... ;)

Honestly, I am not sure how you'll do it; cycled 0.18Watts/m2 has profound effects, a "DC offset" of 1.5Watts/m2 should be killing us. The Sun after all brings us from 2.7 K to ~298K... if you see what I mean.

If you want to have this discussion, you need to read the links I have posted, most recently from the ACS, and before that from Science of Doom ... or at least find some other source that you trust to get info about the radiative balance of the earth. Here is another reasonable one: http://oceanworld...ance.htm

Once you understand the concepts therein, we can discuss the details of how the CO2 value is calculated. It will also make it clear why the stuff you are claiming about the supposed "profound" effects of 1 W/m^2 peak-to-peak fluctuations from the 11-year solar cycle are non-sensical. That effect is understood and accounted for, and it is negligible (thus so is the smaller direct heating from human waste heat).

.. before that from Science of Doom ... or at least find some other source that you trust to get info about the radiative balance of the earth. Here is another reasonable one: http://oceanworld...ance.htm

But he ignored it, despite it being a fair rendition of the issue of vibrational states & re wavenumbers which can be superimposed upon spectra etc, Anyway, worth activating various interactive options

Unfortunately Water_Prophet has egotistically claimed "..I don't read citations" in earlier posts going back few months but, also claimed to put me on 'ignore' ostensibly for reminding him often of his refusing to prove/qualify *any* of his claims, I wish you better luck, I hope its nothing more than minor personality clashes or idiosyncrasies etc

So I read your link.It has the same fallacy propagated OUTSIDE the IPCC. That somehow lifetime is important to the Green House Effect. While lifetime is important in the dynamic case. It means nothing in the steady state.

For example, CO2's concentration is pretty stable year by year, and changes in the Earth's temperature are relatively stable year to year. Water vapor's concentration has essentially not changed, (nor has CO2's).

Now methane and etc., their life time is important . They don't last forever, therefore a time integral is important.

So now I've read it, it says zero about proportion. There is still no way that 1.5watts/m2 will not cause tremendous impact to the climate, short term.

Yohoooo... And another Score... :D Three 1 out of 5 votes on the last one, c'mon we can always do with some more of those.... (and we sure will... ;) so lets get cracking monkey... a... a....aaaa did i not mention for you to wear that crash helmet... now now monkey...

Given our above discussions, it should be apparent how really incorrect your sites are. How much energy is incoming at the top of the atm?

How much of that is diffused by high altitude GHG? Thus effectively repulsed.How much is diffused by low alt GHG? Thus absorbed.

Now, the absorption band of CO2 is very narrow. What fraction of the thermal spectrum does CO2 absorb? Now Water Vapor has only two relatively broad bands, BUT, if you will regard it's absorption spectrum, it never really goes to zero, and has about 4% competition with CO2 in CO2's band, at EQUAL concentrations.

Now, if you are a mathematical physicist, it should be trivial for you to take an average ppm for humidity, 20000ppm is pretty good, discounting the tropics, and use 400ppm for CO2, and calculate just how small CO2's contribution is.

~50% in it absorption band. Elsewhere, it has zero and water predominates.

Then, consider that this 50% is as is NOW, which means, back when it was 280ppm...

Given our above discussions, it should be apparent how really incorrect your sites are. How much energy is incoming at the top of the atm?

How much of that is diffused by high altitude GHG? Thus effectively repulsed.How much is diffused by low alt GHG? Thus absorbed.

Now, the absorption band of CO2 is very narrow. What fraction of the thermal spectrum does CO2 absorb? Now Water Vapor has only two relatively broad bands, BUT, if you will regard it's absorption spectrum, it never really goes to zero, and has about 4% competition with CO2 in CO2's band, at EQUAL concentrations.

These kinds of questions are precisely what is addressed on the Science of Doom website that I linked. The answers on there use fundamental physics and go step by step, with LOTS of examples and as much math as you can keep down. Don't let the name fool you .. the site is basically agnostic with respect to AGW .. its goal is helping people understand the peer-reviewed science.

On top of this, we have the upper/lower atm effects of CO2 only having changed 135ppm. Is that 135ppm responsible for 1.5Watts/m2.

If yes, then you have troubles, if no, you have nothing.

Water Vapor, then has increased 435 ppm, and so on and so on.

The multiple compounding fallacies of CO2 should be making your head spin about now.

Doesn't 0.03Watts/m2, or 3/10 of the Sun's Fluxes explain so much more now?

CO2 should insulate, for example, are changes in climate consistent with insulation? Aka warmer, but milder, like in your home?

Or are they more consistent with heating without (sorry the analogy weakens) insulation? Is weather becoming more extreme.

Alot to chew on.

This is all your delusion. If you set it aside (at least temporarily), open your mind and read the actual science from actual scientists on the links that have been posted for you, you will at least have a chance to understand why it is so wrong-headed.

You are under the impression that I haven't read or re-read your science of doom under that name and many other tedious pseudo-and propaganda sites many many times before.

Yes, because you would not characterize it as propaganda if you had actually read it. If you think differently, please find a piece of "propaganda" on that site and link to it, keeping in mind that detailed expositions of fundamental science making reference to peer-reviewed literature don't automatically become propaganda just because you haven't put in the effort to understand them yet.

The reason I am not engaging is that you haven't posted anything worth discussing yet .. just the same very basic misunderstandings that you have posted before, and could dispel for yourself with a couple of hours of careful reading and reflection. Also, you just spewed out about a dozen different things .. if you really want to talk about them, at least pick a favorite to tackle first.

Nice one monkey.... this is going to be the best sitcom ever....I knew he could do it, monkey say monkey do.. this time around we have four 1 out of 5 votes on his last comment... he's on a roll this time and and raking in as many 1s as he can lol...Watermonkey's psychology is primitive indeed, hiding in the silkwormbox won't help him understand science either, neither will ignoring scientific evidence and facts... More..... More... c'mon monkey, you'll get your banana... c'mon... ;)

That somehow lifetime is important to the Green House Effect. While lifetime is important in the dynamic case

Its plainly obvious, the longer its there the more *cumulative* radiative forcing, why is that hard for anyone to understand ?

Water_Prophet failed to understand

It means nothing in the steady state

Wrong. The 1.5W last second has a portion added to the 1.5W upon the next second ie Cumulative esp also as CO2 is rising !

Water_Prophet claimed

For example, CO2's concentration is pretty stable year by year, and changes in the Earth's temperature are relatively stable year to year. Water vapor's concentration has essentially not changed, (nor has CO2's)

Now methane and etc., their life time is important . They don't last forever, therefore a time integral is important

Thats obtuse. Integration is summing, you need to learn the mechanisms for eg CO2 being removed as much is above sea level then absorption by oceans is a slow process. Given dissassociation/activation energy for CO2 what can Water_Prophet imagine is ANY chemical mechanism for its departure from the atmosphere that is comparatively fast in comparison with addition to the atmosphere ?http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

Water_Prophet shows he doesnt understand scale re current consequences of ocean heating with

There is still no way that 1.5watts/m2 will not cause tremendous impact to the climate, short term

Is there ANY Evidence for Water_Prophet's claim ?

What does Water_Prophet imagine is the definition of "short term" re climate, perhaps 300 yrs ?

How much of that is diffused by high altitude GHG? Thus effectively repulsed.How much is diffused by low alt GHG?

He forgets the frequency is absolutely important & an imperative in terms of absorption & re-radiation !

Large amount of energy from Sol is short wave (SW) visible which mostly passes through GHG's unaffected, whereas Earth's surface converts SW to long wave (LW). This is something I have repeatedly advised Water_Prophet he learn but, still FAILS to understand, see link at end !

Water_Prophet asked

Now, the absorption band of CO2 is very narrow. What fraction of the thermal spectrum does CO2 absorb?

He has been shown answer many times, is he mentally ill or does it appear he is just trying to be irascible ?Details are here:-http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

..Water Vapor has only two relatively broad bands, BUT, if you will regard it's absorption spectrum, it never really goes to zero, and has about 4% competition with CO2 in CO2's band, at EQUAL concentrations

Water_Prophet FAILS to understand the bands of H2O vs CO2 are DIFFERENT, therefore their effects are NOT competitive, they are CUMULATIVE !

Water_Prophet claims

..it should be trivial for you to take an average ppm for humidity, 20000ppm is pretty good, discounting the tropics, and use 400ppm for CO2, and calculate just how small CO2's contribution is

No.You need to use the correct formula because relative figures are WRONG, one must calculate properly as ANY trained "Physical Chemist" SHOULD know and manage easily !

Water_Prophet claims

~50% in it absorption band. Elsewhere, it has zero and water predominates

No, claims need to be proven/qualified !

This is why education in Physics is so VERY important for AGW deniers !

If you really think the science there is propaganda, then you're beyond hope and help

yet details you admit you didn't know are "not worth engaging."

You have not posted anything that I didn't already know. You are (deliberately?) misconstruing my confusion over one of your posts that was poorly worded, which I agreed with after you clarified it. I have since posted at least one link showing you how current climate models account for fluctuations in solar irradiance, and find it to be a minor effect: i.e. this is old news and not surprising to anyone familiar with the climate change discussion.

Let me apply my own primitive psychology.

You've been confronted with details that make you uncomfortable, rather than face them, you run for the warmth and shelter of the familiar.

Tell yourself whatever you want. I await a SINGLE real scientific point that you dispute or want to discuss further

Delusion? This is the best the great mathematical physicist can come up with, quoting me, a pretty useless thing to do, then seriously using the word delusion?

Indeed Water_Prophet is deluded, proof is his 'water bowl' & a flawed, wrong and obviously deluded claim that CO2's radiative forcing is 16,666 x the ACCEPTED figure based on the maths found on this link:-

NN: Link quoted by Water_Prophet yet its clear he has not been able to plug in the numbers despite his claim of "4 technical degrees", we can sympathise because Water_Prophet always has immense problem proving ANY of his claims & the maths is beyond high school level !

But why did Water_Prophet, not go through the link offered by DarkLordKelvin ?

Water_Prophet CANNOT appreciate the simple log formula given to him by runrig is the ADDITIONAL radiative forcing beyond a baseline of ~280ppm !

ie No relation to any useful education or knowledge of Physics so instead Water_Prophet imagines he is some sort of prophet & tries to craft an original thought but, can't do this to extend prevailing knowledge as he never got an education in any of the "4 technical degrees" he claims !

The biggest blunder Water_Prophet made was to claim CO2's radiative forcing was only 0.00009W/m^2 AND claimed this very small figure is in "Great Agreement" with wiki's which is 16,666 times LARGER !https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Why can't Water_Prophet show his working, high school kids can for their maths but, not him !

Clear evidence Water_Prophet's ego exceeds any good sense or even BASIC arithmetic !

So sad, Water_Prophet has been here long enough to come to grips with all physical properties of major GHG's yet FAILED dismally to understand :-(

spare some peanut munchies to your antisciencegorilla sockpuppet, he needs a brain cell or two, just like you ;) i love it when he make big oil look like the bafoons they are.... lets get you and your sockpupopet started on this thread... here monkeys monkeys...

You can ph Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia or email & ask them to email me (ie privacy provisions), so full circle so you won't make stupid claims again, sigh...

Benni clams

I did to become an Engineer....

Really ? name of institute & year started please ?

Thanks for the nice comments HeloMenlo, I do try to focus on the essentials but, still need to learn more effective ways to pass on key Science issues world needs Eg 1. Science Communication, I put DarkLordKelvin squarely ahead of me in that regard. I get impatient too often...